On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 09:05:05AM -0800, Ray Lee wrote:
> > And that's supposed to be an argument in favour of that crap?
>
> So an honest, if stupid, question: How is the TRUE/FALSE stuff any
> different than the case of using a NULL when assigning a zero to a
> pointer is explicitly required to have the same effect? They both
> seem to further the goal of better self-documenting code.
NULL is idiomatic in C. TRUE and FALSE are definitely not. Again,
if you want Bournegol, you know where to find it. Grab the v7 sh
and enjoy "self-documenting" code.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
